Yes like a "Anti ibn saba" movement lol
Interestingly countering the ummayyad lobby would be easy in Iraq Yemen and Hijaz
Persia was iffy anyway most of it nonmuslim at that time
Supporters of ALi in Iraq and Medina are pissed but they can be won over if the Khawarij highlite their anti-ummayyad and pro-Iraqi agenda I think ( few might still resent the khawarij) and downplay their personal hostility towards ALi , afterall the assassin of ALi might be killed as well.
Egypt after killing of AMr b a'as in our timeline is open , Amr leaves no clear successor and no one tribe is dominant there
If mauwiayh is killed so soon, then Abdur rehman b Khalid b walid is the most obvious successor and he is a formidable enemy.
I can see Shaam breaking away from the rest of the caliphate.Abdur rehman might be even more popular than muawiayh amongst the Syrians plus used to the luxurious byzantine lifestyle the Syrians might not welcome the strict austere lifestyle of tribals from Iraq/hijaz/yemen where khawarij drew their main supporters.
Indeed its an addiction for me
khawarij get a lot of bad rep from both shia and sunni because of their egalitarian principles of leadership, but it must be admitted the first shurha or khawarij were very unreasonable and their opposition to ALi cost the Iraqis a victory over the Syrians and let to generations of Syrian domination of Iraq.Later SHurha modified their stance a lit and then the shia became more unreasonable.
If we see a Shurha -shia entente in Iraq during time of Muawiayh they might have pushed out the Syrians
Both shias and sunnis cannot tolerate objective criticism of the people they hold dear, esp shia who cannot even admit that Ali made an error of judgement.
At that time there was no clear shia or khariji ( shurha) doctrineI don't think the Shurha can ever be friends with the Shia, too much doctrinal difference. Iraq vs Sham isn't enough to sway the two to be allies I'm afraid in the long run. For one thing the Shurha to this day retain the belief that Ali and Muawiyah were Kufr or at least Taghoot.
When shia introduced the concept of divine appointment of their imams that was the permenant rift with other muslimsYeah it is very dear to them. Especially Shia, just mentioning something about Ali or Husayn ibn Ali can turn into a fight lol.
When shia introduced the concept of divine appointment of their imams that was the permenant rift with other muslims
but shia in times of the first 5 imams esp first 3 simply meant their supporters and companions
At that time there was no clear shia or khariji ( shurha) doctrine
The shia are simply companions of ALi plus they share many kinship bonds e.g one son of adi b hatim ( a very close sahabi and companion of ALi ) was amongst the shurha
and many people went in and out of khariji camp.
e.g Shibath b Ribi
he started as a supporter of Aisha , then supported ALi then became khariji, left them again participated in killing of hussian with the ummayyad army, became a supporter of ibn zubair and fought with Mukhtar
infact the khariji volunteered to join supporters of ALi after armistice of Hasan to fight ummayyads ( see the biography of Maqil b qays )
but shia( I meant the supporters of ALi ) foolishly refused the result was infighting between Iraqis.If there was cooperation then the birth of shia a different sect might have been prevented
Well from what I know there are many different problems other than the Imama such as as I have said Jabril is believed by many Shia to have given Muhammad revelation by a mistake and should've given it to Ali. Or how many Shia believe that Ali is Allah or like the Alawi believe in a trinity of Allah. Or the practice of Taqqiyyah. Tbh I could go all day.
Only chance of a shia ( not to be confused with imami sect) shurha alliance is the period till middle ummayyadsWell yes they can temporarily ally just as the Nizari did with the Crusaders, but the alliance would not last after the Umayyads are beaten. The fact is that as you say Shia do not take criticism of Ali, and the Khawarij said flat out that Ali was a Taghot/Murtad or a Kufr. Again, the Khawarij can always buddy up to the Shia under the pretext of Kitman though.
Maybe there could be an aborted Shia sect but it is not definite that that will happen do not forget that Islam leaves some things to interpretation and the western view that Shiism began only due to politics is not necessarily followed in the Arab/Iranian sources, such as Hossein Nasr. For one thing, the Shurha left Islam based on their interpretation of the Shariah which became political.
lol yes that's a whole different issue the shia splinter groups
the imami 12ers also disown the ghulu exaggerator groups NOW but in the past there was a lot of "cross feritilization" of ideas between the various shia factions.If you are interested Firaqh al shia by nawbukhti is a good siource ( maybe you already know this )
But for the purposes of the first fitna the "shias" here are actually more important to sunnis today than Imami shias e.g Abdullah b abbas, abu saeed khudri, jabor b abdulah , zayd b arqam all prominent hadith narraters for sunnis
but as I mentioned this sectarian shift at the earliest started in time of As-Sadiq or Al-Baqir not before that.
Only chance of a shia ( not to be confused with imami sect) shurha alliance is the period till middle ummayyads
Infact one can say battle of Dayr al jamijam and revolt of abdur rehman b ashath b qays was a Iraqi alliance of khariji proto-sunnis, and proto-shias against ummayyad Syrian domination
another under appreciated event in Islamic history